Approach ATC over vectoring?

Approach over vectoring?

Okay, hear me out, this post’s intention is not to demean any controllers. In busy airports and basically all airports with an approach controller present, the ATC tend to vector too far out from the field, more than usual. I’m not sure if this is a change in training procedures or something else. There has been more and more posts on fuel emergencies in Infinite Flight lately with majority due to this. Considering that some airports have procedures to deal with many arrivals e.g OMDB and VHHH as well as EDDF, wouldn’t controllers be encouraged to use such procedures?

I’ve noticed some IFATC such as @MaximV and @NJ24 doing some neat work around airports, whether busy or not, these guys never let you down.

My request is if Radar controllers cound incorporate procedures used in the airports mentioned above such as clearing aircraft on the ILS at 20nm instead of the usual 2500ft for 10nm. Second, if the use of speed restrictions could be used more to provide better spacing as there’s always a very big gap between aircraft in many occasions. Imagine having 25 planes inbound but each are spaced at 12nm, that is basically a 300nm queue, that’s 300nm of extra distance required to fly by the last aircraft in the queue. Finally, if there could be more hubs listed on the schedule(similar to what is there on Thursday where we have DTW and AMS listed) to relieve traffic pressure on one airport, especially when airports such as HAAB and LPPT are in use.

I do understand that IFATC approach controllers are supposed to use all runways for landing, but at airports such ans DXB and HKG use separate runways for arrivals and departures for faster traffic movement. Wouldn’t this be encouraged to relieve stress on the Tower controller?

Disclaimer, I’m not trying to throw shade at IFATC controllers who would feel targeted by my post. In my opinion, pointing such things has always been seen as a taboo due to the voluntary nature of their work. I just wanted to provide a pilot’s perspective on this.

I know that there’s a possibility that this topic will be closed without a reply from mods/IFATC personnel and that I’ll be given many labels in your private chat rooms because of this especially since I’m not a certified approach controller but this post is all in good faith.

At the end of the day, tons of gratitude for the IFATC for enabling thousands of planes to complete their flights.

Routes in red mimick procédures used in megahubs like DXB.


Or a miscalculation with fuel load. Keep in mind we have a lot more people flying bc of the stay at home orders, so newcomers may not know the jist of how much fuel to carry and may underestimate flight time, leading to a fuel emergency.

Often IRL procedures cannot be followed due to the far unrealistic amount of traffic we see at the hub airports.

The S-shape approach method is one of the most efficient as it can have a very large amount of aircraft in a small airspace

I do recognise that fact. The thing is, the time spent on approach also gobbles up a fair amount of fuel

I’ve seen some IFATC controllers employing the S-shape in a very efficient way even during FNFs, if it could be done, it can be encouraged.

What you say is correct! I as a IFATC (even though I am not APPR) certified know what you mean. The thing is that because of the loads of traffic hubs get when they are featured, it’s impossible to incorporate multiple Approach Paths. This will (at least how I understood) change with 20.1 because SIDS and Stars will be used for heavy traffic. Using multiple Hubs is a good idea but Misha is responsible for creating the ATC schedule. Also sometimes you have two Hubs like recently EDDM and EIDW but one of them is always preferred and if one has more arrivals more people will spawn there for some reason and then it creates situations like those you mentioned. Last the thing with the fuel. In my opinion it’s noticeable that there occur more emergency fuel situations, but I think this is due to the fact that there are more unexperienced players nowadays who don’t plan with such a long approach. Also I did the Faro - Lissabon Flight today and ended up with 4% fuel when landing (even though I used FplforIf) caused by the long Appr (which can’t really be avoided yet in my opinion as explained above) and one go around.
In the end I can understand you very well but it’s sadly not possible to use all irl procedures in IF yet.

1 Like

I think they used the door today not the S

Hello! I was your tower controller today and I would just like to point something out. This long approach while it might take awhile it definitely works. It allowed spacing and allowed me to expedite departures and runway crossings. With only one runway at this airport equipped with ILS that’s the only one we were using. It’s also hard to have approach manage intersections. This method took awhile but allowed a lot of people to depart quickly and allowed me to get people out of the airport quickly and safely while still having a steady flow of arrivals. I’m pretty sure you would have liked to get down in one go instead of having a Go Around.

Thank you

1 Like

For single runway airports, I can’t disagree that it is a good move, but for airports with parallel runways, wouldn’t be easier to separate arrivals and departures in that both traffic streams would be uninterrupted.

At the same time, about the long approach, I’m not saying that ATC should not be creative, but in a way, the airspace needs order from a pilot’s point of view, where departing and arriving aircraft can avoid traffic conflicts regardless of departure direction.

You mentioned the case of Go-arounds. In a more organized environment, the go-around Traffic would be handled separately from the arrival stream instead being vectored at the back of the line.

Divert. It shouldn’t get that low, even if ATC is putting you in a hold, tell them you need to divet some place else. You shouldn’t even come close to declaring an emergency., if you plan correctly.

1 Like

I agree with you, but the problem with diversions is that very few are willing to do so. At the same time, for the folks who are realists, they would be set back when wanting to reposition to their original destination due to the ban on local flying(which is meant to prevent users taking advantage of this).

Maybe arrivals could face a Live Cap from the hub shown in ATIS information. To relieve the pressure and traffic. ATIS could show the arrival cap say 50 of 50 arrivals are vectored for approach the are no arrival spaces available at this time all aircraft must divert . When an aircraft is handed off to ground a space opens up in the cap. 49 of 50 arrivals vectored fir approach etc. Then an arriving aircraft could contact approach . Just a thought 🙈

If only there was some sort of frequency pilots could tune into further out that could help with traffic flows?



I think it would be best to wait and see what will change with 20.1. The intention of this post was not to slam IFATC in any way. I’ll alert the mods to close this topic.

1 Like